What the IPCC left out: the benefits of global warming

With the clock ticking toward December 2015 and the last chance to conclude a global treaty at the Paris climate conference, the job of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is to ratchet up the alarm. This it did in its report, released at the beginning of the week, on the impacts of climate change. It scored a bull’s-eye in the Financial Times: “Climate change harms food crops, says IPCC,” the headline ran. “Climate Signals, Growing Louder,” the New York Times opined, though the reality is that the volume is being turned up by the IPCC, not the climate itself. For the IPCC, this is mission accomplished — at considerable cost to the body’s residual credibility and integrity.

The IPCC’s Working Group II, tasked with assessing the risks and impacts of climate change, could have chosen to make amends for its previous effort in 2007, which was widely panned for bias and numerous errors. Such was the outcry over the 2007 report that the Dutch parliament ordered the country’s Environmental Assessment Agency to carry out an audit. It found that the working group was dismissive of the potential benefits of climate change, and it criticized the group’s process for being insufficiently transparent.

…

Its most eye-catching claim (in the new WGII report) is that negative impacts of climate change on crop yields are more common to date than positive impacts are. [Note: covered here at WUWT -Anthony]

This improbable claim finds only the weakest support in the main body of the report, with its qualification that climate change played a “minor role.” It is, the report states, “extremely difficult” to define a clear baseline from which to assess the impact of climate change, and many non-climate factors are often difficult to quantify.

More egregiously, the summary speaks of rapid price increases following climate extremes since the 2007 report. This negligence amounts to downright dishonesty, as the summary omits mention of one of the principal causes of the 2007–08 spike in food prices, which is highlighted in the main body of the report. It was not climate change that increased food costs, but climate policies in the form of increased use of food crops in biofuel production, exacerbated by higher oil prices and government embargoes on food exports.

In attempting to attribute changes in farm output to climate change, the IPCC makes heavy use of models linking climate to agriculture, most of which assume that farmers don’t change their behavior as the climate changes.

IPCC is an inter government organisation that has the ‘last word’ on the already tightly directed reports based on 12,000 reports done by researchers for free [personally i would have felt like a ‘useful idiot’ doing political work for free for the govt hiding behind the mask of ‘science’ even if i did a get a nobel prize]

the ipcc do as they are told so who is doing the telling? who is the wizard of oz conducting this show trial of co2 to sell social ecology?

evanmjones says:
April 2, 2014 at 8:49 am
Actually, IPCC AR5 is a huge walkback from AR4. On the level of Napoleon’s walkback from Moscow.

If we see any more “advances to the rear” like this, they will disappear up their own rear.

For the skeptics, AR5 is what victory looks like. These things take time. After all, Rome wasn’t burnt in a day.

Unfortunately, the authors of the ‘Summary‘ for Policymakers are prepared to misrepresent what science there is in the WG reports in order to keep the gullible media publishing unsupported scare stories. The UN and politicians are fully aware that nobody reads the actual reports so they will continue to claim that ‘The Science’ provides full support for their malthusian policies based only on the reported ‘summary’. The main loser here is Science as trust in science is inexorably destroyed.

Re Ian W. “The main loser here is Science as trust in science is inexorably destroyed.” You are right, ‘science’ is now about non-science, alchemy, quackery, palm-reading, shouting, grant $, tenure, and fear-mongering to build up ever-more governmental control over the peasants. A true dark-age. Climate is a convection system, with about 1 million many:many relationships, a fact I remember learning in grade 9 science. IPCC + warmtards = grade 8 level thinking.

AR5 WG2 is actually reasonable in many of the details. I have been scrutinizing 4.3.2.5 on extinctions for a different purpose. But the summaries up get increasingly biased and distorted, so that by the SPM the statements made bear almost no relationship to the underlying information.
The detailed extinctions text recignizes many other causes, that the only climate ‘evidence’ in the literature is in central American amphibians, and that the attribution there is dubious because of invasive fungal disease chytrodiomycisis. Yet the SPM still talks about mass climate change driven extinctions. The only climb down was not providing a percentage estimate as in AR4 (since that is provably wrong). Just like no AR5 ECS estimate, because it would have been revised substantially downwards. The PR is worse than the SPM, and the SPM is much worse than the underlying actual evidence supports.
Next up for detailed scrutiny will be ocean acidification (corals and calcification).

If we see any more “advances to the rear” like this, they will disappear up their own rear.

Great visual, thanks for that. The IPCC is climbing down, and it must be very painful. But they were completely wrong, and they must acknowledge it. Otherwise, they will look like swivel-eyed fanatics, impervious to scientific evidence.

But not so with their True Believers, who have invested their time, their money, their reputations, and their egos in the carbon scare. Those people are being cast adrift by their Authority’s climbdown. This will make them really go ballistic, because they are incapable of admitting they were wrong. We see it here all the time.

The fact is that CO2 is harmless. There is no scientific evidence showing any global harm due to the rise in that tiny trace gas – from 3 parts in 10,000 to 4 parts in 10,000, over a century and a half. It has made no measurable difference at all. Global T is not rising, but Michael Mann is still insisting that carbon is gonna getcha.

CO2 is not only harmless, it is also very beneficial to the biosphere. More is better. The planet is measurably greening as a direct result of increased CO2.

That fact puts the alarmist cult in an unbearable position. All of their predictions have turned out to be wrong. The only results of more “carbon” are beneficial results. There is no identifiable downside.

The IPCC needs to climb the rest of the way down. That will require a few more IPCC scientists to publicly admit what the rest of us know: the IPCC was simply wrong.

Ottmar Edenhofer knows the real IPCC agenda — and it isn’t to protect humanity and the biosphere from ‘carbon’. The IPCC exists to legitimize expropriating the earned wealth of U.S. and Western citizens, and hand it over to those who didn’t earn it. The IPCC just needed an excuse. Fortunately, Planet Earth is sticking their excuse right where it belongs.

More egregiously, the summary speaks of rapid price increases following climate extremes since the 2007 report. This negligence amounts to downright dishonesty, as the summary omits mention of one of the principal causes of the 2007–08 spike in food prices, which is highlighted in the main body of the report. It was not climate change that increased food costs, but climate policies in the form of increased use of food crops in biofuel production, exacerbated by higher oil prices and government embargoes on food exports.

Perhaps the recent crop of juvenile delinquents didn’t know about the effects of some of their predecessors’ policies. We should give them an “off-ramp”

The IPCC will be proven wrong by what really happens in the weather and overall climate of the earth. Unfortunately, most of us now living more than likely will not be around to see that day. The IPCC is becoming wise by making more cautious and long-term predictions.

Maybe some day the IPCC will invite some farmers to submit their thoughts for inclusion in the next official report. Oh, wait… farmers are too busy to waste time on that kind of nonsense. Never mind.
/snark

We see again a familiar pattern in this round of IPCC releases, this time the WGII SPM and Report. As previously, the SPM features alarming statements, which are then second-guessed (undermined) by the actual science imbedded in the report details.

For example, I looked the topic of ocean acidification and fish productivity. The SPM asserts on Page 17 that fish habitats and production will fall and that ocean acidification threatens marine ecosystems.

“Due to contradictory observations there is currently uncertainty about the future trends of major upwelling systems and how their drivers (enhanced productivity, acidification, and hypoxia) will shape ecosystem characteristics (low confidence).” Pg 5

“Both acclimatization and adaptation will shift sensitivity thresholds but the capacity and limits of species to acclimatize or adapt remain largely unknown” Pg 23

“Production, growth, and recruitment of most but not all non-calcifying
seaweeds also increased at CO2 levels from 700 to 900 µatm Pg 25

“Contributions of anthropogenic ocean acidification to climate-induced alterations in the field have rarely been established and are limited to observations in individual species” Pg. 27

“To date, very few ecosystem-level changes in the field have been attributed to anthropogenic or local ocean acification.” Pg 39

I am finding much more credible the Senate Testimony of John T. Everett, in which he said:

“There is no reliable observational evidence of negative trends that can be traced definitively to lowered pH of the water. . . Papers that herald findings that show negative mpacts need to be dismissed if they used acids rather than CO2 to reduce alkalinity, if they simulated CO2 values beyond triple those of today, while not reporting results at concentrations of half, present, double and triple, or as pointed out in several studies, they did not investigate adaptations over many generations.”

“In the oceans, major climate warming and cooling and pH (ocean pH about 8.1) changes are a fact of life, whether it is over a few years as in an El Niño, over decades as in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation or the North Atlantic Oscillation, or over a few hours as a burst of upwelling (pH about 7.59-7.8) appears or a storm brings acidic rainwater (pH about 4-6) into an estuary.”

To say the IPCC is climbing down is to have not read the chapters on adaptation. IPCC is calling on local levels from mayors to regional commissions to school districts to regulatory frameworks to implement its human development , anti-inequality, look out for developing countries and impoverished groups approaches to get to equity without so much as a By Your Leave.

Chapter 20 even says “In considering possible needs for transformational pathways, extreme weather occurrences such as major floods, wildfires, cyclones and heat waves may focus societal attention on vulnerabilities and stressors and provide a ‘policy window’ for major changes.”

What is being changed first in the name of Climate Change and adaptation are values, beliefs, capabilities [levelling], deference to indigenous beliefs, and other aspects of what the report admits are human behaviors and the current socio-economic and political systems.

“Today the IPCC’s role is as defined in Principles Governing IPCC Work, “…to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.”http://ipcc.ch/organization/organization_history.shtml

Because “benefit” does not equate to “risk”, expecting UN documents to acknowledge anything positive would not be in keeping with their directive.
A longer tomato ripening season would be a benefit. Not there. See?

I have never been a fan of dishonesty. Even the so called benefits of a little white lie are dubious at best. Many people, including myself, will lie out of fear and ignorance. While those lies have no redeeming value, they are at least understandable. But the blatant, manipulative, premeditated lying for the purpose of screwing people over, just makes my skin crawl. Its lying with a hefty helping of narcissism; where the liar feels completely justified in lying because they feel so superior and view everyone else as too stupid to matter. History tells us that these kinds of liars cause the most human disruption, including economic suffering, physical suffering and death.

First came the AR5 SPM and yesterday (here in the US) we witnessed the Obamacare miracle, where the complete debacle of the Affordable Health Care Act is miraculously transformed into a vibrant, shining example of Washington benevolence for the rest of the country. Of course, all the numbers were generated by the perpetrators, much like the AR5 numbers. And in both cases, the media immediately treats the numbers like Gospel, even when they are so obviously blatant lies told by blatant liars with a long history of blatantly lying!

My gobsmacked meter is pegged,

Even those who recognize the complete dishonesty still use caution and respect as they unfold the charade, saying things like “Time will tell if these numbers will hold up or not.” or, “There is very little evidence to support these claims.”

It is time to be blatantly honest about all of these liars. It is time to precede every discussion about the liars with the simple truth: They are lying for the sole purpose of controlling us, and the only reason why they think they will get away with it is that, up to this point, we have let them get away with it. It is time to call lies what they are…lies. They are not mistaken or confused. They are lying.

Do you really think that Richard Tol was the only one who understood the level of dishonesty in the AR5 report? I am quite sure that everyone involved is too intelligent to think that they actually published the best the science has to offer. Everyone of them knows they are lying to the world, but somehow rationalizes that elite control of the masses is justified, despite its dismal and deadly failure throughout human history.

Yesterday’s headlines gleefully shouted that 7.1 million uninsured have signed up for Obamacare. A far more honest and accurate headline would read: ‘Obama and the Media Hope American People Are Morons While Making Outrageous Unsupportable Claims!’ For climate change, simply substitute the ‘IPCC’ for ‘Obama’ and ‘global population’ for ‘American People’.

So far, the young men in their crisp uniforms carrying their shiny rifles are not herding us into railroad cars, but the are building fences, polishing their guns and pressing their trousers.

I think it’s time to remind the IPCC about the disadvantages of one cold climate period. Would you want to be around at this time or during the “hottest decade evahhhhh?”

SOME EFFECTS OF THE LITTLE ICE AGE.

Abstract – October 1998
Kenneth J. Hsu
Sun, climate, hunger, and mass migration
…Northern Europe was wetter while the middle- and low-latitude lands were more arid during colder epochs. Both sets of cold climatical conditions were unfavorable for agricultural production. Historical records show that large demographic movements in history took place because of crop failures and mass starvation, rather than escaping from war zones. The “wandering” of the Germanic tribes during the first two or three centuries of the Christian Era is one example. Whereas the accelerated release of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels is ultimately to cause global warming, historical evidence indicates, however, that global warming has been on the whole a blessing to mankind. Global cooling, on the other hand, has curtailed agricultural production and has led to famines and mass migrations of people….
Doi: 10.1007/BF02877737http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02877737
————————

Abstract – 1984
Hubert H. LambSome Studies of the Little Ice Age of Recent Centuries and its Great Storms
…And so the series gives us our most reliable estimate of the magnitude of the temperature depression in England and neighbouring countries. In northern Scotland, southern Norway and Iceland there are indications of a significantly greater depression of the prevailing temperatures…..The enhanced thermal gradient between latitudes about 50° and 60–65°N in this part of the world is thought to have provided a basis for the development of some greater wind storms in these latitudes than have occurred in most of the last 100 years…
[Climatic Changes on a Yearly to Millennial Basis 1984, pp 309-329]
doi: 10.1007/978-94-015-7692-5_34
————————

Abstract – 1999
Wolfgang BehringerClimatic Change and Witch-Hunting: The Impact of the Little Ice Age on Mentalities
…..During the late 14th and 15th centuries the traditional conception of witchcraft was transformed into the idea of a great conspiracy of witches, to explain “unnatural” climatic phenomena……extended witch-hunts took place at the various peaks of the Little Ice Age because a part of society held the witches directly responsibile for the high frequency of climatic anomalies and the impacts thereof. The enormous tensions created in society as a result of the persecution of witches demonstrate how dangerous it is to discuss climatic change under the aspects of morality.
Doi: 10.1007/978-94-015-9259-8_13http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-015-9259-8_13
————————

Abstract – 2004
Oster, EmilyWitchcraft, Weather and Economic Growth in Renaissance Europe
….The most active period of the witchcraft trials coincides with a period of lower than average temperature known to climatologists as the “little ice age.” The colder temperatures increased the frequency of crop failure, and colder seas prevented cod and other fish from migrating as far north, eliminating this vital food source for some northern areas of Europe (Fagan, 2000).
DOI: dx.doi.org/10.1257/089533004773563502
————————

Abstract – 2000
Reiter P.
From Shakespeare to Defoe: Malaria in England in the Little Ice Age
…Until the second half of the 20th century, malaria was endemic and widespread in many temperate regions, with major epidemics as far north as the Arctic Circle. From 1564 to the 1730s—the coldest period of the Little Ice Age—malaria was an important cause of illness and death in several parts of England. Transmission began to decline only in the 19th century,…
*Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – Volume 6, Number 1—February 2000 – Perspective

————————

Abstract – 2002
Otto S. KnottnerusMalaria Around the North Sea: A Survey
…Malaria may have been introduced into the North Sea Basin in late Antiquity. It has been endemic at least since the 7th century, but its high-days were the Little Ice Age. After 1750 the disease steadily declined until it disappeared in the 1950s. ….
doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-04965-5_21
————————

Abstract – 1980
AB ApplebyEpidemics and famine in the little ice age
…The frequent crises were caused by famine, epidemic disease, and war, sometimes working in combination, sometimes not….France was especially subject to famine in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, with terrible crises falling in 1630-1631, 1649-1652, 1661-1662, 1693-1694, and 1709-1710….http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/203063?uid=2&uid=4&sid=21103592744971
————————

Abstract – 2013
S. Engler et alThe Irish famine of 1740–1741: famine vulnerability and “climate migration”The “Great Frost” of 1740 was one of the coldest winters of the eighteenth century and impacted many countries all over Europe. The years 1740–1741 have long been known as a period of general crisis caused by harvest failures, high prices for staple foods, and excess mortality……We regard migration as a form of adaptation and argue that Irish migration in 1740–1741 should be considered as a case of climate-induced migration.
doi: 10.5194/cp-9-1161-2013, 2013
————————

Abstract – 1998
M.D. Flannigan et al
Future wildfire in circumboreal forests in relation to global warming
Despite increasing temperatures since the end of the Little Ice Age (ca. 1850), wildfire frequency has decreased as shown in many field studies from North America and Europe. We believe that global warming since 1850 may have triggered decreases in fire frequency in some regions and future warming may even lead to further decreases in fire frequency….
DOI: 10.2307/3237261
————————

Abstract – 1993
Yves Bergeron, Sylvain ArchambaultDecreasing frequency of forest fires in the southern boreal zone of Québec and its relation to global warming since the end of the ‘Little Ice Age’
doi: 10.1177/095968369300300307
————————

Abstract – 2006
J.M. Russell, T.C. JohnsonLittle Ice Age drought in equatorial Africa
…….A high ratio of Mg to Ca (%Mg) indicates strong droughts in central Africa during the Little Ice Age (A.D. 1400–1750), in contrast to records from Lake Naivasha, Kenya, which suggest a wet Little Ice Age. This spatial pattern in Africa likely arose due to coupled changes in the high latitudes, the position of the Intertropical Convergence Zone, and the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) system. Our results further suggest that the patterns and variability of twentieth-century rainfall in central Africa have been unusually conducive to human welfare in the context of the past 1400 yr.
doi: 10.1130/G23125A.1

————————

Abstract – 2005Climate change, social unrest and dynastic transition in ancient China
Dian Zhang et al
…this study adopted a scientific approach to compare the paleoclimatic records with the historical data of wars, social unrests, and dynastic transitions in China spanned from the late Tang to Qing Dynasties. Results showed that war frequency in cold phases was much higher than that in mild phases. Besides, 70%–80% of war peaks and most of the dynastic transitions and nationwide social unrests in China took place in cold phases. …
[Note: Qing dynasty 1644 to 1912]
doi: 10.1007/BF02897517

————————

Abstract –
Glynn, Peter W. et alA dead Central American coral reef tract: Possible link with the Little Ice Age
…These analyses showed that live coral reefs in the Gulf of Papagayo, Costa Rica, were severely depleted in number, size and variety of species, compared to reefs in the major upwelling zone of the Gulf of Panama. Coral growth in the Gulf of Papagayo consisted mainly of dead reefs that died from 150–300 years B.P….
doi: dx.doi.org/10.1357/002224083788519740
————————

Abstract – 1979
Great Historical Events That Were Significantly Affected by the Weather: 4, The Great Famines in Finland and Estonia, 1695–97
…It is estimated that in Finland about 25–33% of the population perished (Jutikkala, 1955; Muroma, 1972), and in Estonia-Livonia about 20% (Liiv, 1938)….Records indicate that in the absence of an appropriate diet, the population consumed unwholesome and partly or fully indigestible ‘foods’ which led to widespread diseases and epidemics (diarrhea of sorts, including lientery, dysentery, etc.). There were even some cases of cannibalism,…
doi: dx.doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477(1979)0602.0.CO;2

————————Abstract – 2007
James M. Russell et al
Spatial complexity of ‘Little Ice Age’ climate in East Africa:
sedimentary records from two crater lake basins in western Uganda
…Variations in sedimentation and salt mineralogy of hypersaline Lake Kitagata, and a succession of fine-grained lake sediments and peat in the freshwater Lake Kibengo, suggest century-scale droughts centred on AD 0, ~1100, ~1550 and 1750. These results broadly support data from nearby Lake Edward on the timing of drought in western Uganda, but contrast with lake sediment records from eastern equatorial Africa….
doi: 10.1177/0959683607075832
————————

Abstract – 2000
PD Tyson, Karlen W., Holmgren K., Heiss G. A.The Little Ice Age and medieval warming in South Africa
….Extreme events in the record show distinct teleconnections with similar events in other parts of the world, in both the northern and southern hemispheres. The lowest temperature events recorded during the Little Ice Age in South Africa are coeval with the Maunder and Sporer Minima in solar irradiance…..
*South African Journal of Science 96(3): 121-126 (March)
————————

Letter To Nature – 1993Large increases in flood magnitude in response to modest changes in climate
James C. Knox
…Here I present a 7,000-year geological record of overbank floods for upper Mississippi river tributaries in mid-continent North America,……..After ~3,300 years ago, when the climate became cooler and wetter, an abrupt shift in flood behaviour occurred, with frequent floods of a size that now recurs only once every 500 years or more. Still larger floods occurred between about AD 1250 and 1450, during the transition from the medieval warm interval to the cooler Little Ice Age….
doi: 10.1038/361430a0
————————

Abstract – 1983
Jean M. Grove et al
Tax records from western Norway, as an index of Little Ice Age environmental and economic deterioration
Data from general tax commissions held in Sunnfjord Fogderi, Norway, reveal a substantial decline in rural prosperity between 1667 and 1723. Late seventeenth and eighteenth century incidence of serious physical damage to farmlands is documented in tax relief proceedings. Environmental deterioration characterised the early years of the Little Ice Age in western Norway.
Doi: 10.1007/BF02423522
————————

Abstract – 2004
Richard H. Steckel
New Light on the “Dark Ages” The Remarkably Tall Stature of Northern European Men during the Medieval Era
…..It is plausible to link the decline in average height to climate deterioration; growing inequality; urbanization and the expansion of trade and commerce, which facilitated the spread of diseases; fluctuations in population size that impinged on nutritional status; the global spread of diseases associated with European expansion and colonization; and conflicts or wars…..
doi: 10.1215/01455532-28-2-211
————————

Abstract – 2005
David A. Hodella et alClimate change on the Yucatan Peninsula during the Little Ice Age
…Climate change in the 15th century is also supported by historical accounts of cold and famine described in Maya and Aztec chronicles. We conclude that climate became drier on the Yucatan Peninsula in the 15th century A.D. near the onset of the Little Ice Age (LIA). Comparison of results from the Yucatan Peninsula with other circum-Caribbean paleoclimate records indicates a coherent climate response for this region at the beginning of the LIA. At that time, sea surface temperatures cooled and aridity in the circum-Caribbean region increased.
Doi: dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.yqres.2004.11.004
————————

Abstract – 2011
David D. Zhang et al
The causality analysis of climate change and large-scale human crisis
…Results show that cooling from A.D. 1560–1660 caused successive agro-ecological, socioeconomic, and demographic catastrophes, leading to the General Crisis of the Seventeenth Century. We identified a set of causal linkages between climate change and human crisis….Our findings indicate that climate change was the ultimate cause, and climate-driven economic downturn was the direct cause, of large-scale human crises in preindustrial Europe and the Northern Hemisphere.
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1104268108
————————

Abstract – 1997
L.K. Barlow et al
Interdisciplinary investigations of the end of the Norse Western Settlement in Greenland
…Historical climate records, mainly from Iceland, contain evidence for lowered temperatures and severe weather in the north Atlantic region around the mid-fourteenth century. Archaeological, palaeoecological and historical data specifically concerning the Western Settlement suggest that Norse living conditions left little buffer for unseasonable climate, and provide evidence for a sudden and catastrophic end around the mid-fourteenth century….
doi: 10.1177/095968369700700411
————————

Paper – 2008
Phil Jones
Historical climatology-a state of the art review
…River Thames freeze-overs (and sometimes frost fairs) only occurred 23 times between 1408 and 1814 (Lamb, 1977) when the old London Bridge constricted flow through its multiple piers and restricted the tide with a weir. Figure 1 shows the character of Old London Bridge with its many arches and obstructions to flow….
Special Issue: Historical Climatology Volume 63, Issue 7, pages 181–186, July 2008
DOI: 10.1002/wea.245

Your article begs a most fundament question; why did the IPCC charter exclude the assessment of benefits from anthropogenic CO2 from burning fossil fuels?

That is the key question that needs to be answered.

My thought leads me to answer that question not in a trivial political context but a broader context of the philosophy of science. The charter for the IPCC seems to be based on a postmodern philosophy concept of science along with post-normal science view. I think those two theories have created a new prototype of science process and purpose which I think is embodied in the IPCC assessment process and goals. The new science they emulate is for science to serve as compliant handmaiden to ‘prove’ a desired ‘a priori’ premise. The new science concept is not to understand reality objectively; it is to provide only research that proves a desired predetermined view.

To remove the subjective and myopic new concept of science from the IPCC then there needs to be a new charter for the IPCC based on the traditional theory of science as objective finder of reality with total openness and transparency.

On food to fuel here is corn: “40 percent of the U.S. corn crop goes into ethanol”, yet the IPCC misses this.

Bloomberg Business Week – 6 January 2014
Congress Wakes Up to the Bad News About Biofuels
By Charles Kenny
……..Although ethanol is more expensive to produce than regular gasoline, the biggest problems with the mandates aren’t higher prices at the pump. The biofuels regulations result in higher food prices, and their impact on the environment is at best slightly positive and could be negative. Almost completely because of the EU and U.S. mandates, global ethanol consumption quintupled in the first decade of the 21st century. About 40 percent of the U.S. corn crop goes into ethanol, while in Europe biodiesel consumes two-thirds of oilseed production. Those are crops and cropland that could be used to produce food for human consumption.

Blatant misrepresentation with clear intent that in a just world would throw the perpetrators in prison for the harm caused.

Not just to the minds of the brainwashed and the trillions of dollars flushed down the toilet to hijack science and put it into the hands of zealots with a fraudulent cause but to the lives of those that will suffer in measurable ways from ruinous policies that they are trying to force on the world…….ironically, for the false claim that they are trying to save that world.

Increasing CO2 is the best thing that has happened to the biosphere and vegetative health of this planet in the last 200 years.

The thing is the more trees and plants that grow the more CO2 they absorb but also throw out oxygen. It’s a natural cycle, but they need rain and nitrogen too. If the balance is right they grow better or if it is lacking in some element, they don’t grow as much. Such as in winter deciduous trees go dormant when they lose their leaves, and even evergreens don’t grow much either till the soil warms up in spring. I know folks I grow bonsai.

Jimbo says:
April 2, 2014 at 1:44 pm
On food to fuel here is corn: “40 percent of the U.S. corn crop goes into ethanol”, yet the IPCC misses this.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Did they? What makes you think that isn’t part of the plan? An unintended but beneficial consequence to their stated mandate (from their perspective)? Dunno. Just speculating.

Some have suggested IPCC and their directors have that much forward thinking. I doubt it since reading the previous two SPM’s and AR’s, I believe they don’t think that people will see the disconnect. Con men like Maurice Strong however, do have the ability to think long term big picture.

But the MSM sure won’t see the disconnect and its been there in black and white all along. Trouble is, almost all the media just quotes the press releases, AP and Reuters and never read the original information. The SPM maybe, but surely not the WG’s. And given many of the elevated discussions on this site that include higher mathematics and statistics, there isn’t a snowballs chance in H that graduates from journalism will have a clue and won’t wade through the AR’s to see what they say compared to the SPM’s.

It’s been years since I used any higher level math or statistics so I trust that reading the reviews here will be sufficient. I have a decent B.S. meter so I can get a pretty good feeling of what is likely to work and what won’t along with 50+ years of engineering, construction and business experience.

I’m not big on conspiracy theories. But as Patrick Moore in his book “Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout” notes, a small group of dedicated people can indeed affect change. However as he also noted, it doesn’t matter if you are Castro, Mao, Che Guevara, Ghandi, Mandela or Greenpeace; success or perceived success changes what you are as new people join the group. Organizations become organic and take on a life of their own, they become “great machines”.

Love your detailed list of references, Jimbo. Thanks to you and many others here for my continuing education.

… But the document itself revealed a far more striking story: it emphasised, again and again, the need to adapt to climate change. Even in the main text of the press release that accompanied the report, the word ‘adaptation’ occurred ten times, the word ‘mitigation’ not at all.
…
Lawson pointed out that adaptation had six obvious benefits as a strategy, which mitigation did not share. [ I reformat to a list ]
It required no international treaty, but would work if adopted unilaterally;
it could be applied locally;
it would produce results quickly;
it could capture any benefits of warming while avoiding risks;
it addressed existing problems that were merely exacerbated by warming;
and it would bring benefits even if global warming proves to have been exaggerated.
…
It is remarkable how far this latest report moves towards Lawson’s position. Professor Field, who seems to be an eminently sensible chap, clearly strove to emphasise adaptation, if only because the chance of an international agreement on emissions looks ever less likely. ….
….
… Chapter 20 even acknowledges that ‘in some cases mitigation may impede adaptation (e.g., reduced energy availability in countries with growing populations)’. A crucial point, this: that preventing the poor from getting access to cheap electricity from coal might make them more vulnerable to climate change. So green policies may compound the problem they seek to solve.
…
In short, there is a great deal in this report to like. It has, moreover, toned down the alarm considerably. …. New Scientist noticed that ‘the report has even watered down many of the more confident predictions that appeared in the leaked drafts’.

It is one of those seminal moments where I think a bridge has been created in the climate debate, and I hope you’ll seize the moment and embrace it. This video comes with my strongest possible recommendation, because it speaks to a real problem, with real solutions in plain language, while at the same time offering true hope.

This is a TED talk by Dr. Allan Savory in Los Angeles this past week, attended by our friend Dr. Matt Ridley, whose presentation we’ll look at another time. Sometimes, TED talks are little more that pie in the sky; this one is not. And, it not only offers a solution, it shows the solution in action and presents proof that it works. It makes more sense than anything I’ve seen in a long, long, time.

From the TED Radio Hour Blog: “[Desertification] is mostly caused by livestock. Everyone knows this, says Savory. Scientists have known it for decades. Livestock damage the land, leading to dry ground, leading to desert. This makes sense, and turns out to be quite wrong.

Juxtapose for a moment two euphonies:
1. Allan Savory once was responsible for causing a horrifying act of eugenics, the killing of 40,000 elephants and other pachyderms, in order to “save” the grasslands of the new African National Parks. But he found out the problem only got worse. It was the wrong solution. The proper course is to promote LARGER herds, greater density of foraging animals and carnivores, that migrate to keep from eating grass soiled by their own dung.
2. The shift from AR4 to AR5, as expressed above in the Matt Ridley GWPF piece today. The message of AR4 was to save the planet we must commit “before it is too late” to a ruinously expensive, totally ineffectual, steal from the poor to subsidize the rich, totalitarian, collectivist, world-government-necessary, kill-if-we-have-to, pipedream of climate mitigation via carbon pollution control and transforming society to renewable resources by force. AR5, according to Matt Ridley, is much more favorable to the idea that adaption is superior to mitigation because it is cheaper, more likely to work, requires less coordination, and works whether it will get warmer, colder, drier, or wetter.

Just as it was folly to decimate elephant herds to save the savannah despite the herds of environmentalists who felt it necessary if tragic, it was and is today folly to support the decimation of this planet’s human population and wealth in vain plans of mitigation to save the climate.

CAGW Skeptics should take this opportunity to embrace AR5 WGII, at least important parts of it, as a victory. “At last, some signs of intelligence and humanity emanating from the IPCC!” Adaption instead of mitigation. It’s what we have been saying all along.

The political jujutsu possibilities that arise by using the AR5 to support the Skeptic viewpoint could be powerful.

“One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
~Ottmar Edenhofer, Chair, IPCC WG-3

Science has nothing to do with it. Science is the false veneer laid over the UN’s intent to get it’s fingers into the pockets of ordinary citizens.

What we need are more honest scientists, who are willing to speak out. This is difficult, because as Upton Sinclair wrote:

It is difficult to make a man understand something when his livelihood depends on not understanding it.

Difficult, but not impossible. There are enough scientists involved with the IPCC that there must be a few who put honesty above their paycheck. Dr. Tol is one. There must be others. Because the entire carbon scare is based on pseudo-science. That has to bother scientists who were raised to be honest.

One of the sotto voce admissions of the Warmists is that CC is likely to be beneficial up to some limit, and only then turn negative. The “limit” is pulled out of thin air, or rectally polluted air, and even then contains a fallacy. The cumulative benefits up to that flexion will, by definition, have fortified the economy and world to deal with any negatives that follow it. Possibly by a significant margin (ratios of 50:1 or more have been suggested).